Family battling Children’s Hospital to bring teen home for Christmas #2

[jaunty-girl]

A person with the mentality of a 5 year old ....according to Lou....

Her parents are really their own worst enemies. Hyperbole and lies do not make you look stable and like you have your childs best interest at heart.

 

[Yoda]

Jmo this post is not towards any individual or poster.
I am very offended by the archaic attitude towards mental health and care. When children are in the hospital for cancer treatment, or any other prolonged medical issue, no one refers to them as 'locked up'. Take the same tone and disgust when you say 'psych ward' and insert 'cancer ward'. It sounds shameful. There is plenty wrong with the mental health care system, but psychiatric wards are not a dumping ground, a jail, or an early 1900's sanatorium. They are not what you see in movies or read in books. And like everything else, there are good and bad. It is time we treat mental illness with the seriousness it deserves.
I don't know anything about the facility where JP was and, unless I visit personally, I refuse to malign a facility and the entire staff.
Jmo

 

[Elley Mae]

Justina Pelletier belongs with her family, Massachusetts DCF says in legal motion

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eing-justina-pelletier-should-be-returned-to/

In what Justina's attorneys are calling a "dramatic reversal," the Massachusetts DCF filed a motion agreeing that the teenager should be returned to her family.

 

[Elley Mae]

Well Judge?

 

[i.b.nora]

According to that same article: "According to sources close to the case, Johnston issued a June 13 deadline for all paperwork to be filed and indicated a ruling will be made on or before June 20.”

Its not Friday the 13th yet. There might be other parties involved. Staver, et al are just being bullies, IMO.

 

[jjenny]

According to that same article: "According to sources close to the case, Johnston issued a June 13 deadline for all paperwork to be filed and indicated a ruling will be made on or before June 20.”

Its not Friday the 13th yet. There might be other parties involved. Staver, et al are just being bullies, IMO.

I am sorry, but what other parties?
DCF had custody, now DCF says she should go home.
What other parties do you think could possibly be involved in this case?

 

[jjenny]

Jmo this post is not towards any individual or poster.
I am very offended by the archaic attitude towards mental health and care. When children are in the hospital for cancer treatment, or any other prolonged medical issue, no one refers to them as 'locked up'. Take the same tone and disgust when you say 'psych ward' and insert 'cancer ward'. It sounds shameful. There is plenty wrong with the mental health care system, but psychiatric wards are not a dumping ground, a jail, or an early 1900's sanatorium. They are not what you see in movies or read in books. And like everything else, there are good and bad. It is time we treat mental illness with the seriousness it deserves.
I don't know anything about the facility where JP was and, unless I visit personally, I refuse to malign a facility and the entire staff.
Jmo

Bader 5 is a secure mental ward. So they are literally locked up.

 

[jjenny]

Someone should probably do a screen shot of the Justina comment. I imagine the lawyers for the State of Massachusetts, for BCH, for DFS, would like to have anything like that in their collection of documents to do with this case.

I suppose they might need it when family files their lawsuits. Although I am not sure why you think it will help them.

 

[sweetmom]

I am sorry, but what other parties?
DCF had custody, now DCF says she should go home.
What other parties do you think could possibly be involved in this case?

The judge is playing by the rules, and that is the way it should be. There may not be other parties, but perhaps Justina's guardian ad litem or even her Tufts medical team may feel she is not ready to go home. We shall see.

Also: "Bader 5 is a secure mental ward. So they are literally locked up."

More to the point, IMO, visitors who may upset the patients are locked out. Given the Pelletiers' penchant for hysterical outbursts that frightened other patients' families, I can understand why the hospital wanted control over who got access to the patients on Bader 5.

 

[jjenny]

The judge is playing by the rules, and that is the way it should be. There may not be other parties, but perhaps Justina's guardian ad litem or even her Tufts medical team may feel she is not ready to go home. We shall see.

Also: "Bader 5 is a secure mental ward. So they are literally locked up."

More to the point, IMO, visitors who may upset the patients are locked out. Given the Pelletiers' penchant for hysterical outbursts that frightened other patients' families, I can understand why the hospital wanted control over who got access to the patients on Bader 5.

Her Tufts medical team never felt she should be taken from home, so I very much doubt they could have any objection. Her guarding ad litem doesn't have custody and doesn't take care of her. If DCF thinks she should go home, is her guardian ad litem going to pay for her care in this new facility? Somehow I doubt it.
Her state appointed lawyer long ago agreed she should be home with family.

 

[sweetmom]

I suppose they might need it when family files their lawsuits. Although I am not sure why you think it will help them.

IMO, the threat of lawsuits is just another of the Pelletiers' attention-seeking bluster. Just like the claims that Justina was harassed and that her teeth were broken while she was at Wayside. No proof, no evidence, and these charges have quietly gone away.

If they do actually file lawsuits, no one will get any money except the lawyers, IMO.

If there are any lawyers on this thread, I would love to hear if they think the family has any kind of case at all. Observers may not like what BCH, DCF, the judge, etc. did, but was any of it illegal?

 

[jjenny]

IMO, the threat of lawsuits is just another of the Pelletiers' attention-seeking bluster. Just like the claims that Justina was harassed and that her teeth were broken while she was at Wayside. No proof, no evidence, and these charges have quietly gone away.

If they do actually file lawsuits, no one will get any money except the lawyers, IMO.

If there are any lawyers on this thread, I would love to hear if they think the family has any kind of case at all. Observers may not like what BCH, DCF, the judge, etc. did, but was any of it illegal?

There was another lawsuit filed on a case that sounds very similar to Justina's. So, i very much doubt the threat of lawsuits is just an "attention-seeking bluster."

 

[Linda7NJ]

Her Tufts medical team never felt she should be taken from home, so I very much doubt they could have any objection. Her guarding ad litem doesn't have custody and doesn't take care of her. If DCF thinks she should go home, is her guardian ad litem going to pay for her care in this new facility? Somehow I doubt it.
Her state appointed lawyer long ago agreed she should be home with family.

Please provide a link to Tufts official statement that they never felt she should be removed from home.

Please provide a link supporting your belief that a Guardian Ad Litem can't render an opinion unless they are willing to provide the day to day care and have custody.

Please provide a link that her Guardian Ad Litem would be financially responsible for the cost of a treatment facility if not in agreement with DCF

Please provide a link that her Guardian Ad Litem long ago stated she should be home with her family.

Thank you so much in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sweetmom]

There was another lawsuit filed on a case that sounds very similar to Justina's. So, i very much doubt the threat of lawsuits is just an "attention-seeking bluster."

You do understand that filing a lawsuit does not automatically mean the court will hear it or let it go to trial (or any other form of adjudication.) Is that other lawsuit you mention going to be heard in court?

IMO, the threat of filing a lawsuit is often just bluster, used to get an opponent to do what you want done. Kind of a step up from having your lawyer send someone a "cease and desist" letter on your behalf.

In the Justina case, the threats to sue may be genuine or just another way of getting attention from the media (and financial support), or possibly both.

 

[jjenny]

Please provide a link to Tufts official statement that they never felt she should be removed from home.

Please provide a link supporting your belief that a Guardian Ad Litem can't render an opinion unless they are willing to provide the day to day care and have custody.

Please provide a link that her Guardian Ad Litem would be financially responsible for the cost of a treatment facility if not in agreement with DCF

Please provide a link that her Guardian Ad Litem long ago stated she should be home with her family.

Thank you so much in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My belief is just that-my belief. I can't provide you a link to that.
Her guardian ad litem and her state appointed lawyer are different persons. Her state appointed lawyer agreed long ago she should go home. Which I already provided links for (a number of times), and not going to do it again.
Her Tuft's team has Dr. Korson as a key player.
From what the family has released, Dr. Korson was clearly flabbergasted by DCF removing her from her family's care.
I already provided links for that as well.

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO, the threat of lawsuits is just another of the Pelletiers' attention-seeking bluster. Just like the claims that Justina was harassed and that her teeth were broken while she was at Wayside. No proof, no evidence, and these charges have quietly gone away.



If they do actually file lawsuits, no one will get any money except the lawyers, IMO.



If there are any lawyers on this thread, I would love to hear if they think the family has any kind of case at all. Observers may not like what BCH, DCF, the judge, etc. did, but was any of it illegal?

They have no case at all.

They will not file lawsuits against anyone. They can't have the TRUTH getting out. That would not benefit Lou and his crusade.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

They have no case at all.

They will not file lawsuits against anyone. They can't have the TRUTH getting out. That would not benefit Lou and his crusade.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No case at all? They will not file lawsuits? Why don't you provide a link to that?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Justina's court appointed attorney is separate from a Guardian Ad Litem.
Her attorney is there to represent what Justina wants.
Her Guardian Ad Litem is there to inform the judge what's in Justina's BEST INTEREST.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

No case at all? They will not file lawsuits? Why don't you provide a link to that?

I have no need to provide a link. I clearly stated it was in my opinion. Opinions do not require links.

I did not state it as fact. When something is stated as fact, a link is required.

Hope that helps.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

I have no need to provide a link. I clearly stated it was in my opinion. Opinions do not require links.

I did not state it as fact. When something is stated as fact, a link is required.

Hope that helps.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"They will not file a lawsuit" is not a fact?


Could have fooled me.